[RELEASE CANDIDATE]: mod_perl-2.0.5 RC5

RC5 is now available. The change since RC4 resolves a problem with the Apache-SizeLimit external 0.97 tag that had an additional 'trunk' directory embedded from an error that occurred when I created the A-SL 0.97 tag. +1 on 2.2.15/5.14.1/OSX-10.7

On Friday, 13 April 2012 12:51:48 Fred Moyer wrote: > RC5 is now available. The change since RC4 resolves a problem with the > Apache-SizeLimit external 0.97 tag that had an additional 'trunk' > directory embedded from an error that occurred when I created the A-SL > 0.97 tag. +1 on 2.2.15/5.14.1/OSX-10.7 > > http://people.apache.org/~phred/mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5.tar.gz

[.Sent this reply yesterday but maybe from the wrong address (my work address maybe changing), so resending from home. Apologies if you get this twice.]

Fred Moyer wrote on 2012-04-13: > > RC5 is now available. The change since RC4 resolves a problem with the > Apache-SizeLimit external 0.97 tag that had an additional 'trunk' > directory embedded from an error that occurred when I created the A-SL > 0.97 tag. +1 on 2.2.15/5.14.1/OSX-10.7 > > http://people.apache.org/~phred/mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5.tar.gz> > MD5 (mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5.tar.gz) = 442fb4908ffe9a8c580edebf02bca4fe >

Do you know where your httpd or apxs binaries are? Looks like it can't find them.

unless ($vars->{httpd} or $vars->{apxs}) {

# mod_perl 2.0 build (almost) always knows the right httpd

# location (and optionally apxs). if we get here we can't # continue because the interactive config can't work with # mod_perl 2.0 build (by design) if (IS_MOD_PERL_2_BUILD){ my $mp2_build = $self->modperl_build_config(); # if mod_perl 2 was built against the httpd source it # doesn't know where to find apxs/httpd, so in this case # fall back to interactive config unless ($mp2_build->{MP_APXS}) { die "mod_perl 2 was built against Apache sources, we " . "don't know where httpd/apxs executables are, therefore " . "skipping the test suite execution" }

# not sure what else could go wrong but we can't continue die "something is wrong, mod_perl 2.0 build should have " . "supplied all the needed information to run the tests. " . "Please post lib/Apache/BuildConfig.pm along with the " . "bug report"; }

On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote: > > Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8 > > Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with > any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know.

I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has settled on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is 5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon as 5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>.

As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy to a fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older than ... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle would be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the supported versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list like 2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 will support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ...

If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled.

Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is so, too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug while fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that comes up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage I think that does not qualify for another RC.

If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6.

This fixed the problem i was having, and all the tests pass. the patch I used to the rc5 tree source is attached. it'll probably have to be poked with to apply to svn.

Because the solution to this particular issue appears to be this simple, I think that it might be in our best interest to do rc6 with this change, and explicitly say we aren't going to support whatever we aren't going to support for the next release. I am more than willing to be overruled on this though ;)

Adam

On 12-04-20 06:27 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote: > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote: >>> Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8 >> >> Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with >> any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know. > > I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to > support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has settled > on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is > 5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon as > 5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>. > > As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy to a > fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are > dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older than > ... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle would > be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the supported > versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list like > 2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 will > support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ... > > If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must > change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled. > > Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is so, > too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug while > fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that comes > up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage I > think that does not qualify for another RC. > > If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I > don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But > IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6. >

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Adam Prime <adam.prime [at] utoronto> wrote: >> #if defined(__GNUC__)&& !defined(PERL_GCC_BRACE_GROUPS_FORBIDDEN) > >> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ({ void *_p = (p); _p; }) >> #else >> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ((void *) (p)) >> #endif >> >> So the solution for the problem is simple: >> >> # ifdef MUTABLE_SV >> SV *sv=MUTABLE_SV(...); >> # else >> SV *sv=(SV*)... >> # endif >> > > This fixed the problem i was having, and all the tests pass. the patch I > used to the rc5 tree source is attached. it'll probably have to be poked > with to apply to svn. > > Because the solution to this particular issue appears to be this simple, I > think that it might be in our best interest to do rc6 with this change, and > explicitly say we aren't going to support whatever we aren't going to > support for the next release. I am more than willing to be overruled on > this though ;) > > Adam > > > > > > > > On 12-04-20 06:27 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote: >> >> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote: >>>> >>>> Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8 >>> >>> >>> Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with >>> any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know. >> >> >> I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to >> support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has >> settled >> on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is >> 5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon >> as >> 5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>. >> >> As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy >> to a >> fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are >> dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older >> than >> ... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle >> would >> be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the >> supported >> versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list >> like >> 2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 >> will >> support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ... >> >> If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must >> change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled. >> >> Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is >> so, >> too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug >> while >> fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that >> comes >> up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage >> I >> think that does not qualify for another RC. >> >> If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I >> don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But >> IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6. >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe [at] perl > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help [at] perl

On 12-04-20 11:15 AM, Fred Moyer wrote: > +1 for this fix. Adam, if you want to apply it, I'll roll RC6. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Adam Prime<adam.prime [at] utoronto> wrote: >>> #if defined(__GNUC__)&& !defined(PERL_GCC_BRACE_GROUPS_FORBIDDEN) >> >>> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ({ void *_p = (p); _p; }) >>> #else >>> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ((void *) (p)) >>> #endif >>> >>> So the solution for the problem is simple: >>> >>> # ifdef MUTABLE_SV >>> SV *sv=MUTABLE_SV(...); >>> # else >>> SV *sv=(SV*)... >>> # endif >>> >> >> This fixed the problem i was having, and all the tests pass. the patch I >> used to the rc5 tree source is attached. it'll probably have to be poked >> with to apply to svn. >> >> Because the solution to this particular issue appears to be this simple, I >> think that it might be in our best interest to do rc6 with this change, and >> explicitly say we aren't going to support whatever we aren't going to >> support for the next release. I am more than willing to be overruled on >> this though ;) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12-04-20 06:27 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8 >>>> >>>> >>>> Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with >>>> any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know. >>> >>> >>> I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to >>> support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has >>> settled >>> on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is >>> 5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon >>> as >>> 5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>. >>> >>> As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy >>> to a >>> fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are >>> dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older >>> than >>> ... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle >>> would >>> be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the >>> supported >>> versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list >>> like >>> 2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 >>> will >>> support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ... >>> >>> If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must >>> change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled. >>> >>> Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is >>> so, >>> too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug >>> while >>> fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that >>> comes >>> up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage >>> I >>> think that does not qualify for another RC. >>> >>> If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I >>> don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But >>> IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6. >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe [at] perl >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help [at] perl